It’s about a month since I listened to a podcast, featuring a discussion with Bart Campolo. I found that interesting, so I bought the book that was co-authored by Bart Campolo and his father Tony Campolo. This post is mainly a review of the book. However, you might want to start by listening to that podcast.

Background

Tony Campolo is well known as part of Evangelical Christianity, specifically the Evangelical left. Bart, his son, started off in Evangelical Christianity, but reached a point in his life where he could no longer believe. How he reached that point is discussed in the podcast and in the book. Although he rejected Christianity, Bart continued with a humanist mission. Tony, Bart’s father, regretted Bart’s decision but accepted it nontheless.

The book is mostly a sequence of chapters, alternately written by Tony and by Bart, with a final chapter that was jointly written.

My review

I found the book a bit uneven. But this is to be expected when it consists of an alternation of chapters with two different authors.

Recently the Patheos blog site renamed it’s “Atheist channel” to “Nonreligious channel”. The resulted in some comments and blog posts about the change. For me, it didn’t matter much. Since I gave up on religion, I have always preferred to call myself “non-religious” rather than “atheist”.

Religion is dangerous and hurts real people. I strongly believe that when the world is reasoned out of religious faith, the world will be a much better place.

Some people see atheism as dangerous and as hurting real people. But that’s not my main concern here. I just don’t see that it would make the world a better place if religion were to disappear.

We already have non-religious people who are in the anti-vax movement. We already have non-religious people who are climate change deniers.

The things that Dan objects to in religion are human foibles. Yes, religion manages to concentrate those into a movement. But there are plenty of other ways that these human foibles can be concentrated into group-think.

So I just do not see that anti-theism provides some kind of solution for problems that arise out of being human.

For myself, I accept that people can have weird beliefs. And maybe some folk think that I have weird beliefs. But we should be able to get along in spite of individual wierdness.

In the recent events at Wheaton College (see previous post), action toward possibly firing Hawkins is said to be based on her assertion that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Apparently, the Wheaton College president does not agree.

The view that Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God, is a rather curious position for Wheaton to take. I’ll readily grant that many conservative Christians agree with that position, but that does not alter its strangeness.

The God of Abraham

Both Christians and Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham. So, on the face if it, one would think that they worship the same God.

There is no doubt that the way Christians characterize and describe God is very different from the way that Muslims characterize and describe God. For example, Christians claim that there God is a triune God, a unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Muslims reject that view of God. But so do Jewish people. Yet conservative Christians do believe that they worship the same God as is worshiped by the Jewish people.

It would be easy to understand Christians saying that Muslims mischaracterize God, and it would be easy to understand Muslims claiming that Christians mischaracterize God. But to say that the Muslim God is a different entity from the Christian God — that’s what is hard to understand.

The atheist view

To say Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God, seems to imply that there is nothing more to the Christian God than the way that he is described and characterized by Christians. But this is pretty much the atheist view — namely that man created God, rather than God creating man.

One wonders whether the president of Wheaton has thought his position through.

A recent report from Pew research shows that respect for churches is declining among millennials. The report also suggests a decline is respect for the news media, but that seems to affect all generations.

It’s hard to read people’s minds. So I’ll guess. The millennials are very aware of global warming, and they surely realize that their lives will be significantly impacted. Too many churches and other religious institutions are still in denial about global warming.

Respect is something that has to be earned. And many of the churches seem to be failing at that. Not only are they in denial about global warming, they are also far too tolerant of racism and other social ills.

It’s good to see that younger folk are noticing these failings and acting on them.

Jerry Coyne bemoans the fact that a high percentage of Americans believe such things as that baby Jesus was laid in a manger (81%).

But here’s the thing. If I were asked in a poll, whether Professor Moriarty were the arch rival of Sherlock Holmes, I would assent to that belief. I would assent even though I am fully aware that both are fictional characters. And I suspect that many Sherlock Holmes fans would do likewise. If you hear people talking about popular movies, you will hear them expressing beliefs that are true only in the context of the movie plot.

What we believe, and what we hold to be true, is sensitive to context. And we often pick up the context from the way the question is asked or from earlier parts of the conversation.

I think Jerry is taking that Pew poll too seriously. Given the time of the year, I’m inclined to see it as a “feel good about Christmas” poll.

Posted in opinion, religion |
Comments Off on The news about Christmas — maybe not so sad after all

I rarely listen to atheist or religious podcasts. When I do, too often they are the same old arguments. But this one was different. It gave me an insight in the mind of the YEC (young earth creationist). So I’m recommending it.

Here’s a paragraph from the associated post:

We discussed how faith can make you accept intellectual defeat while thinking through doubts and questions, and we also covered how people can rationalize irrational things in order to preserve the beliefs they were taught to embrace (Hint: It has to do with inheriting a very low view of human nature).

I’ll note that when I check a short while ago, this episode did not show in the podcast index. However, the youtube video on the linked blog post does work.

It’s still Wednesday in Chicago. But blog time is UTC, so for the blog it is Thursday April 23, which is Open Secular Day.

People who have been following this blog will already know that I am not religious. I have never tried to hide that. Here, I’ll describe what it means to me.

Teaching

As an educator, I have endeavored to keep religion out of the classroom. (My teaching was at university level in mathematics and computer science). I don’t think most of my students would have had any inkling as to my religious view. Perhaps, for my last few years of teaching, some might have seen my blog and worked it out from there. But I have never mentioned this blog in class either. For that matter, I have also kept my political views out of the classroom.

Jason Shaw

I’ll start with the easy one. Jason Shaw suggests that peer pressure is behind both smoking and religion. There may be some truth to that. I’m reasonably resistant to peer pressure, which is probably why I never did take up smoking and why I found it not too hard to drop religion. It was parental pressure that got me started in religion, and that’s a bit harder to resist.

Jerry Coyne

I disagree with Jerry Coyne. I don’t go as far in criticizing religion. He objects National Geographic having an article on Francis Collins and religion. I don’t see the objection. National Geographic has a tradition of articles on cultural anthropology, so why not one on that of western Christians.

Coyne also criticizes Collins for defending religion as compatible with science. I’ve never seen the point in that argument. For sure, science is compatible with some forms of religion, such as that involved in YEC creationism. But I don’t see that as an essential incompatibility. Many scientists find a way of maintaining their Christianity without compromising their science.

Michael Egnor

This is where I disagree the most. Egnor disagrees with Coyne, but for different reasons. According to Egnor, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is a fundamental question about ultimate purpose.

Perhaps Egnor is right, that Coyne misunderstood the question to be mechanical rather than teleological. But I see the question as foolish and pointless. There is no useful answer that we could ever give to that question. Any answer that is suggested will be one made up by humans to satisfy their own psychological needs.